Case 1:11-cv-00527-TWP-DML Document 40

Provided by: Overhauser Law Offices LLC www.iniplaw.org www.overhauser.com

Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 240

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P. a Delaware limited partnership, Plaintiff, v. NORTHMOBILETECH, LLC, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Simon Property Group, L.P. (SPG), pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Plaintiff brought this action seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 7,805,130 (the 130 patent) is invalid or, alternatively, not infringed by SPG. [Dkt. 1.] After Simon filed its complaint, Defendant NorthMobileTech LLC (NMT) filed a separate complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin alleging infringement of the 130 patent (Wisconsin Action). SPG sought dismissal and/or transfer of the Wisconsin Action to the Southern District of Indiana. NMT opposed, arguing that the Southern District of Indiana did not have jurisdiction as to it. On these grounds, NMT also filed a motion to dismiss SPGs complaint in this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). [Dkt. 21, 23.] To assess SPGs arguments, this Court granted SPG leave to conduct expedited jurisdictional discovery. [Dkt. 37.] The parties completed that discovery, finalized their briefing regarding the jurisdictional issues [Dkt. 38, 39], and have been awaiting the Courts ruling.
CH81225.1 214228-10003

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-0527-TWP-DML

Case 1:11-cv-00527-TWP-DML Document 40

Filed 10/03/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 241

In the meantime, however, the Wisconsin Action moved forward, as the Western District of Wisconsin would not stay any deadlines (other than those relating to SPGs requests for dismissal and/or transfer) while the jurisdictional questions were being addressed. The parties have now briefed several motions, submitted their claim construction positions and have begun the discovery process. As a result, SPG believes that dismissing and/or transferring the

Wisconsin Action at this juncture would only cause unnecessary delay and require both this Court and the parties to duplicate significant efforts already undertaken in the Wisconsin Action. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, SPG hereby dismisses its Complaint here (without prejudice).

Date: October 3, 2011

By: /s/ Michael R. Limrick____________ Daniel L. Boots Michael R. Limrick Nathan L. Lundquist Bingham McHale LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 317.635.8900 317.236.9907 (facsimile) Timothy J. Carroll Matthew F. Carmody Steven M. Lubezny Loeb & Loeb LLP 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60654 Admitted Pro Hac Vice

CH81225.1 214228-10003

Case 1:11-cv-00527-TWP-DML Document 40

Filed 10/03/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 242

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of October, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system. Holiday W. Banta Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 3700 Indianapolis, IN 46204-5137 hbanta@world-ip.com Keith A. Rabenberg Senniger Powers LLP 100 North Broadway 17th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 krabenberg@senniger.com s/ Michael R. Limrick An Attorney for Simon Property Group, L.P.

CH81225.1 214228-10003